Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Mr Khan said the caption was added by a staff member “in error”, and does not reflect his view or the view of the GLA.stop_shouting said:
Really?Friend Or Defoe said:
There's a section of society that hate Boris because of his rich background and likewise Khan for his ethnicity. Both are in the minority I hope.blackpool72 said:
You are the one stirring up racial hatred.seth plum said:
Is there any evidence that Khan has said or done anything or taken any steps to stir up racial hatred?stop_shouting said:
Someone that stirs up racial hatredseth plum said:What is a race grifter?
This thread is about ULEZ .
But you are suggesting that people do not like Khan because he's a Muslim.
His religion has f##k all to do with it.
In exactly the same way as your hatred for our current Prime minister has f###k all to do with his religion.
Now can we get back to discussing ULEZ and not try making it all about race or religion.
Comments above about Khan stirring up racial hatred seem odd.
Drop it.0 -
.Friend Or Defoe said:
Mr Khan said the caption was added by a staff member “in error”, and does not reflect his view or the view of the GLA.stop_shouting said:
Really?Friend Or Defoe said:
There's a section of society that hate Boris because of his rich background and likewise Khan for his ethnicity. Both are in the minority I hope.blackpool72 said:
You are the one stirring up racial hatred.seth plum said:
Is there any evidence that Khan has said or done anything or taken any steps to stir up racial hatred?stop_shouting said:
Someone that stirs up racial hatredseth plum said:What is a race grifter?
This thread is about ULEZ .
But you are suggesting that people do not like Khan because he's a Muslim.
His religion has f##k all to do with it.
In exactly the same way as your hatred for our current Prime minister has f###k all to do with his religion.
Now can we get back to discussing ULEZ and not try making it all about race or religion.
Comments above about Khan stirring up racial hatred seem odd.
Drop it.0 -
Wasn't this the same Mayor that said there are to many white males at the top of TFL and he aims to change that ?1
-
0
-
Unless you have got something sensible to say on ULEZ, can you just butt out of this debate. Because, as usual, you have stirred things up by spouting your poison on here.seth plum said:
I agree that to dislike Khan for the stupid proposal to introduce tolls on the Blackwall tunnel is not unreasonable.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I dislike Khan for being a mediocre politician who frequently spouts bollocks - being a Muslim has nothing to do with it.seth plum said:Some people have always hated Khan and the ULEZ scheme is the current vehicle with which to hate him. Previously he was hated for decisions by local councils to have low traffic neighbourhoods, and he has been hated for knife crime because of decisions by central government to restrict police funding, he has been hated for criticising the visit(s) by vulva grabbing Trump.
Of course nobody hates Sadiq Khan for coming from a Muslim background and not having a white skin, oh no it’s not that at all.
Lost any final respect for him after pushing through the Silvertown tunnel.
I notice that you intimate that at one point you had respect for him, why did you used to have any respect at all?
Some people would assert that every single thing Khan says and does is bollocks. I don’t think it is everything myself.
As I said above there is nobody on the planet that hates Sadiq Khan because he is not white skinned and comes from a Muslim background.
As someone who has worked in the transport world all his life, I find it really interesting how this scheme is being sold to the public when its real purpose is far different to the reasons given. I know not everyone shares my view, which is fair enough and I would like to debate it. This morning I have had a perfectly reasonable exchange with @Rothko and that's how it should be.
But your crap will ensure this thread gets closed, just like you have down with loads of other threads. You can see it is already getting hi-jacked and heated because of you.
So if you can't post sensibly on ULEZ, just keep quiet.
9 -
People should disagree agreeably, otherwise it's meaningless noise0
-
NAIL.ON.HEADRothko said:
Vast majority of the poorest Londoners don’t drive, even less in the poorest groups, the poorest Londoners are more at risk from air pollution and its effects on health.JohnnyH2 said:
Khan is the Mayor representing the economically poorest people in our society. His plan is to punish these people specifically in a cost of living crisis.JamesSeed said:I know the air has improved a lot where I live over the 20 years we’ve lived here. We’re not far from the south circ. One of my sons has asthma, and that has improved. General lowering of car emissions during that time has helped, and ULEZ continued that process. But something did need to be done, it’s easy to forget how bad it was.On our holiday to Santorini I was reminded of what London of that. Found the fumes (and heat) in built up areas difficult to cope with.Some of the vitriol aimed at Khan is OTT. He’s not an evil man trying to enrich himself (there are enough of those around) and he seems sincere in what he’s doing, to me at least. Met him a few times through work and he seemed alright. Not particularly charismatic, quite ordinary really, and no massive ego as far as I could see. But he does seem eltonengender real hatred from some. Take a peek at the replies to any of his tweets and it’s quite scary. He gets a lot of death threats apparently.I haven’t followed this very closely, but ULEZ was a policy supported, if not instigated, by Boris Johnson wasn’t it? I suspect if he’d remained Mayor he would have had plenty of funding from central government to follow it through.Politics is a dirty business, and it’s not in the Tories interests for Khan to be a success, so they’ll do everything they can to make things difficult for him (like reducing funding), aided and supported of course by papers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
20 mph is more than fast enough in the residential streets around where I live. That’s nothing to do with Khan of course. Some of the bigger roads it’s hard to stick to the limit, but having just completed a speed awareness course (caught out in Nottingham on a dual carriageway) I have to. One tip they gave us on the course was to use cruise control if you have it. It’s supposed to help you get more mpg as well. 👍
But I think if there’s more evidence that 30mph on bigger roads really does reduce emissions, then maybe there’ll be changes.
That he is why he get the 'vitriol'There’s a lot of noise from a few people
the funds from expanded ULEZ are needed to fill the financial black hole Boris dug for Kahn and TfL by only lending them the cash to keep London moving through the pandemic
Boris literally used Covid to skewer his political conqueror
meanwhile his regime rubber stamped gifts of Billions to its political and commercial friends for absolutely nothing in return - Test & Trace, PPE, Baroness Mone, et al
now some of London's commuters and residents will be picking up the tab for childish spite on the grandest scale
the rabid attack dogs in the overwhelmingly tory press repeat the lies about the genesis of ULEZ's expansion which are swallowed and regurgitated by the complicit and gullible
primarily to prop up compliant neighbouring tory councils
if Kahn is deposed by a tory candidate we'll see how quickly Boris's TfL financial chicanery is restored or more likely the relatively wealthy drivers have their costs reduced and transferred to the poorest of the poor by massive price rises on inner London public transport, hmmm I wonder...9 -
Because that is not what Khan said. Did you read the article?stop_shouting said:
How on earth is saying that white families don’t represent Londoners acceptable.seth plum said:
That Independent article indicates Khan taking action to reduce racial hatred.stop_shouting said:
Really?Friend Or Defoe said:
There's a section of society that hate Boris because of his rich background and likewise Khan for his ethnicity. Both are in the minority I hope.blackpool72 said:
You are the one stirring up racial hatred.seth plum said:
Is there any evidence that Khan has said or done anything or taken any steps to stir up racial hatred?stop_shouting said:
Someone that stirs up racial hatredseth plum said:What is a race grifter?
This thread is about ULEZ .
But you are suggesting that people do not like Khan because he's a Muslim.
His religion has f##k all to do with it.
In exactly the same way as your hatred for our current Prime minister has f###k all to do with his religion.
Now can we get back to discussing ULEZ and not try making it all about race or religion.
Comments above about Khan stirring up racial hatred seem odd.0 -
Rubbish.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Unless you have got something sensible to say on ULEZ, can you just butt out of this debate. Because, as usual, you have stirred things up by spouting your poison on here.seth plum said:
I agree that to dislike Khan for the stupid proposal to introduce tolls on the Blackwall tunnel is not unreasonable.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I dislike Khan for being a mediocre politician who frequently spouts bollocks - being a Muslim has nothing to do with it.seth plum said:Some people have always hated Khan and the ULEZ scheme is the current vehicle with which to hate him. Previously he was hated for decisions by local councils to have low traffic neighbourhoods, and he has been hated for knife crime because of decisions by central government to restrict police funding, he has been hated for criticising the visit(s) by vulva grabbing Trump.
Of course nobody hates Sadiq Khan for coming from a Muslim background and not having a white skin, oh no it’s not that at all.
Lost any final respect for him after pushing through the Silvertown tunnel.
I notice that you intimate that at one point you had respect for him, why did you used to have any respect at all?
Some people would assert that every single thing Khan says and does is bollocks. I don’t think it is everything myself.
As I said above there is nobody on the planet that hates Sadiq Khan because he is not white skinned and comes from a Muslim background.
As someone who has worked in the transport world all his life, I find it really interesting how this scheme is being sold to the public when its real purpose is far different to the reasons given. I know not everyone shares my view, which is fair enough and I would like to debate it. This morning I have had a perfectly reasonable exchange with @Rothko and that's how it should be.
But your crap will ensure this thread gets closed, just like you have down with loads of other threads. You can see it is already getting hi-jacked and heated because of you.
So if you can't post sensibly on ULEZ, just keep quiet.
I have asked about evidence that ULEZ is a cash cow.0 -
Hard to distance himself from it when it’s on his website plum. If he really wanted to distance himself from it then he should have said that the person who wrote it had been identified and disciplined. It’s blatant racism coming out of the mayor of londons office. Surely you can see that.seth plum said:
Because that is not what Khan said. Did you read the article?stop_shouting said:
How on earth is saying that white families don’t represent Londoners acceptable.seth plum said:
That Independent article indicates Khan taking action to reduce racial hatred.stop_shouting said:
Really?Friend Or Defoe said:
There's a section of society that hate Boris because of his rich background and likewise Khan for his ethnicity. Both are in the minority I hope.blackpool72 said:
You are the one stirring up racial hatred.seth plum said:
Is there any evidence that Khan has said or done anything or taken any steps to stir up racial hatred?stop_shouting said:
Someone that stirs up racial hatredseth plum said:What is a race grifter?
This thread is about ULEZ .
But you are suggesting that people do not like Khan because he's a Muslim.
His religion has f##k all to do with it.
In exactly the same way as your hatred for our current Prime minister has f###k all to do with his religion.
Now can we get back to discussing ULEZ and not try making it all about race or religion.
Comments above about Khan stirring up racial hatred seem odd.0 - Sponsored links:
-
The newspaper link explains how Khan distanced himself from the remark.stop_shouting said:
Hard to distance himself from it when it’s on his website plum. If he really wanted to distance himself from it then he should have said that the person who wrote it had been identified and disciplined. It’s blatant racism coming out of the mayor of londons office. Surely you can see that.seth plum said:
Because that is not what Khan said. Did you read the article?stop_shouting said:
How on earth is saying that white families don’t represent Londoners acceptable.seth plum said:
That Independent article indicates Khan taking action to reduce racial hatred.stop_shouting said:
Really?Friend Or Defoe said:
There's a section of society that hate Boris because of his rich background and likewise Khan for his ethnicity. Both are in the minority I hope.blackpool72 said:
You are the one stirring up racial hatred.seth plum said:
Is there any evidence that Khan has said or done anything or taken any steps to stir up racial hatred?stop_shouting said:
Someone that stirs up racial hatredseth plum said:What is a race grifter?
This thread is about ULEZ .
But you are suggesting that people do not like Khan because he's a Muslim.
His religion has f##k all to do with it.
In exactly the same way as your hatred for our current Prime minister has f###k all to do with his religion.
Now can we get back to discussing ULEZ and not try making it all about race or religion.
Comments above about Khan stirring up racial hatred seem odd.
He did not say white families don’t represent Londoners, could see why it was wrong, and had it removed.
I don’t know if the person who wrote it has been identified and disciplined.
0 -
Not too sure that TfL is underfunded as I have seen a lot of money wasted on cycle lanes. Some being completely reconfigured within 2 years (Woolwich Road being an example). What is underfunded however is London Underground.
Should you ever have the pleasure of travelling into Charing Cross whilst using it, take a look at what tourists get to see when exiting the Trafalgar Square exit, rather than the Strand (Train Station) exit. As BBW will agree, some of the main station assets are well beyond their life expectancy, and credit should be given to maintainers for keeping them going.
Sorry for moving away from the general ULEZ conversation, but LU needs serious investment.1 -
I don't disagree but I'm sure I've pointed it out in this thread it's not just LU that has lacked investment it's the whole public transport network in Britain that has for decades. Motorists have benefited from real terms cuts to the tax on motoring at the same time funding for public transport has been lacking. Now any hint of an increase to motorists costs is shouted down like it's some sort of infringement on civil liberties. Tory voters hate taxation but a lack of it just leads to the mess we're in now, public services are in such a mess all round and there doesn't seem to be any easy way out of it.R0TW said:Not too sure that TfL is underfunded as I have seen a lot of money wasted on cycle lanes. Some being completely reconfigured within 2 years (Woolwich Road being an example). What is underfunded however is London Underground.
Should you ever have the pleasure of travelling into Charing Cross whilst using it, take a look at what tourists get to see when exiting the Trafalgar Square exit, rather than the Strand (Train Station) exit. As BBW will agree, some of the main station assets are well beyond their life expectancy, and credit should be given to maintainers for keeping them going.
Sorry for moving away from the general ULEZ conversation, but LU needs serious investment.2 -
I wonder if those against ULEZ and who stopped traffic during their protests, are the same people who complained about the Just Stop Oil protests stopping traffic.
3 -
Quite possibly but that's not the point.ME14addick said:I wonder if those against ULEZ and who stopped traffic during their protests, are the same people who complained about the Just Stop Oil protests stopping traffic.
The ULEZ protests ae advertised/organised in advance I believe so people can work around them.
If I am wrong on that I am happy to be corrected.1 -
Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZ1
-
I want to explore the notion that Sadiq Khan has introduced ULEZ as a way of making money.
The facts to assemble are that so far in the latest scrappage scheme it has cost £30 million, which represents 15,000 vehicles.
(When the first scrappage scheme was brought in in 2009 400,000 were given up at a cost of £2,000 each (£800 million pounds paid out)).
The cost of ULEZ implementation is around £130 million pounds.
So by those figures to set up the ULEZ scheme has cost £160 million pounds so far.
Now the more disputable calculations.
I am trying to estimate the number of fines that might be handed out at £12.50 each. I am basing my calculation on the London congestion charge experience.
The London congestion charge was first introduced in 2003, twenty years ago, and since then some 9 million fines have been handed out, that is about 450,000 per year.
If that is a reasonable comparison to make, then rounding it up to 500,000 vehicles per year fined £12.50 because of ULEZ is £6,250,000.
So if you divide £160 million by £6,250,000 it comes to around 25.
So if this is a method for Sadiq Khan to fleece motorists it is going to take about 25 years before he begins to show any gain. (When Sadiq Khan is 78 years old).
Now it is clearly a matter of dispute as to whether the ULEZ is going to create cleaner air, although I have yet to see an argument that ULEZ is going to make the air quality worse.
However I would like to see an intelligent case made that might disprove my calculations above and establish with certainty that Sadiq Khan is deliberately setting out to fleece motorists for whatever reason.1 -
It is undeniably about money though as it was a stipulation of the TfL funding settlement1
-
I love the idea that people in Biggin Hill are at risk from air pollution, and ULEZ will save them.Rothko said:
Vast majority of the poorest Londoners don’t drive, even less in the poorest groups, the poorest Londoners are more at risk from air pollution and its effects on health.JohnnyH2 said:
Khan is the Mayor representing the economically poorest people in our society. His plan is to punish these people specifically in a cost of living crisis.JamesSeed said:I know the air has improved a lot where I live over the 20 years we’ve lived here. We’re not far from the south circ. One of my sons has asthma, and that has improved. General lowering of car emissions during that time has helped, and ULEZ continued that process. But something did need to be done, it’s easy to forget how bad it was.On our holiday to Santorini I was reminded of what London of that. Found the fumes (and heat) in built up areas difficult to cope with.Some of the vitriol aimed at Khan is OTT. He’s not an evil man trying to enrich himself (there are enough of those around) and he seems sincere in what he’s doing, to me at least. Met him a few times through work and he seemed alright. Not particularly charismatic, quite ordinary really, and no massive ego as far as I could see. But he does seem eltonengender real hatred from some. Take a peek at the replies to any of his tweets and it’s quite scary. He gets a lot of death threats apparently.I haven’t followed this very closely, but ULEZ was a policy supported, if not instigated, by Boris Johnson wasn’t it? I suspect if he’d remained Mayor he would have had plenty of funding from central government to follow it through.Politics is a dirty business, and it’s not in the Tories interests for Khan to be a success, so they’ll do everything they can to make things difficult for him (like reducing funding), aided and supported of course by papers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
20 mph is more than fast enough in the residential streets around where I live. That’s nothing to do with Khan of course. Some of the bigger roads it’s hard to stick to the limit, but having just completed a speed awareness course (caught out in Nottingham on a dual carriageway) I have to. One tip they gave us on the course was to use cruise control if you have it. It’s supposed to help you get more mpg as well. 👍
But I think if there’s more evidence that 30mph on bigger roads really does reduce emissions, then maybe there’ll be changes.
That he is why he get the 'vitriol'There’s a lot of noise from a few people
What a load of tosh.0 -
According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.1
- Sponsored links:
-
From the BBC;
“The leader of City Hall Conservatives has accused Mayor of London Sadiq Khan of "colluding to quash research" on the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez).
Emails show deputy mayor Shirley Rodrigues twice asked an air quality expert to counter research questioning benefits of a polluting-vehicle charge.
Prof Kelly's science team from Imperial College London has been paid nearly £1m by Mr Khan's office.
The Labour mayor said Prof Kelly's work was not influenced by the funding.“
Did the mayor say this with a straight face? £1million.
1 -
These might help a little.seth plum said:I want to explore the notion that Sadiq Khan has introduced ULEZ as a way of making money.
The facts to assemble are that so far in the latest scrappage scheme it has cost £30 million, which represents 15,000 vehicles.
(When the first scrappage scheme was brought in in 2009 400,000 were given up at a cost of £2,000 each (£800 million pounds paid out)).
The cost of ULEZ implementation is around £130 million pounds.
So by those figures to set up the ULEZ scheme has cost £160 million pounds so far.
Now the more disputable calculations.
I am trying to estimate the number of fines that might be handed out at £12.50 each. I am basing my calculation on the London congestion charge experience.
The London congestion charge was first introduced in 2003, twenty years ago, and since then some 9 million fines have been handed out, that is about 450,000 per year.
If that is a reasonable comparison to make, then rounding it up to 500,000 vehicles per year fined £12.50 because of ULEZ is £6,250,000.
So if you divide £160 million by £6,250,000 it comes to around 25.
So if this is a method for Sadiq Khan to fleece motorists it is going to take about 25 years before he begins to show any gain. (When Sadiq Khan is 78 years old).
Now it is clearly a matter of dispute as to whether the ULEZ is going to create cleaner air, although I have yet to see an argument that ULEZ is going to make the air quality worse.
However I would like to see an intelligent case made that might disprove my calculations above and establish with certainty that Sadiq Khan is deliberately setting out to fleece motorists for whatever reason.0 -
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.0 -
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.3 -
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)7 -
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.1 -
There is certainly a good case to say that it ought to be introduced with more of a velvet glove seeing as how many are suffering under this Tory created cost of living crisis.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.1 -
Nothing to stop the £12.50 per day charge going up either0
-
Polling done in the last month, post Uxbridge shows Londoners support the introduction, so yes it has support in its current guise.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.It will go the same as the Congestion Charge, the Johnson Low emissions zone, the south/notth circular extension, that there is a LOT of noise, misplaced fear, and then nothing bad happens, the air gets a cleaner, and London goes its merry way.5 -
Polling really does say that does it? Majority support with fees as they are ?Rothko said:
Polling done in the last month, post Uxbridge shows Londoners support the introduction, so yes it has support in its current guise.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.It will go the same as the Congestion Charge, the Johnson Low emissions zone, the south/notth circular extension, that there is a LOT of noise, misplaced fear, and then nothing bad happens, the air gets a cleaner, and London goes its merry way.Can you point me to that as I’m surprised given it was suggested Starmer might guide Khan to a revised approach.0
